My 35mm rangefinder misadventure

[BillRogers]

Let me give some brief background. I began shooting in the late 1950s while I was in grade school. My first camera was an Argus C3. Along the way, I owned many film cameras, including a Canon AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder.

I was always disappointed with the results I got from film, however, and gradually my photography tapered off.

Then came digital photography, and I fell in love all over again. Finally I was able to achieve the results I knew were possible. At present, I have a Nikon D200 and a Nikon D70, and various Nikkor lenses.

But, several months ago, I gave in to my nostalgic urges, and purchased three 35mm RF cameras on eBay - a Zorki C, a Zorki 4K, and an Argus C3. I had hoped that the Zorki 4K would be a usable camera, but I had conveniently forgotten all the hassles associated with film photography.

My 35mm rangefinder misadventure has confirmed my earlier opinion. First of all, any SLR, film or digital, is inherently superior to a rangefinder camera. The ability to look through the lens is a huge advantage. Also, the rangefinder focusing mechanism is a Rube Goldberg setup that depends on precision machining to work properly. Let's face it; back when ordinary people could not afford a SLR, the rangefinder camera was king. But that was fifty years ago.

Second, digital is superior to film. I had forgotten all the hassles associated with film; the cost, the inconvenience, and the delay. Today, everything converts to digital sooner or later, so add the hassle and expense of scanning.

From an engineering standpoint, a digital SLR is a more elegant image capturing machine than a film rangefinder camera. Anytime a process involves conversion, degredation takes place. A RF camera converts the fore-and-aft position of the lens to a split-image mechanism, and a 35mm camera requires that the image on the negative must be converted to digital. A digital SLR removes these intermediate steps, bringing the photographer closer to the subject, and eliminating two sources of degradation.

My three 35mm rangefinder cameras are in display cases in my office. They are beautiful antiques, reminders of a bygone age of photography.

Today, most of the people on RFF prefer shooting with 35mm RF cameras. That's fine; some people enjoy driving old cars. Just don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that a 35mm rangefinder camera is superior to a DLSR in some ways. It isn't, just like a 1957 Chevy is inferior to a 2007 Chevy in every way.

 

[shenkerian]

To everyone who's thinking of responding to this thread:
Please don't feed the troll.

 

[BillRogers]

To everyone who's thinking of responding to this thread:
Please don't feed the troll.

I'm not trolling. I'm expressing my opinion based on my experience. I did not request a response.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Different things work for different folks.

What matters is perhaps the quality of your photos, never mind what technology you used to make them.

 

[iml]

Well, I've made the opposite move, from SLRs and DSLRs to RFs, and couldn't be happier, RFs are just better all round for me. So, there we go, we're all different.

Ian

 

[airds]

Just can't help thinking your in the wrong place then Bill :-(

 

[dazedgonebye]

A thread that trashes what most members of a forum believe then ends with an invocation that we not "blow smoke up my butt" can not be thought of as anything other than trolling.
Should be locked instantly.
Please mods...save this poor guy's butt from the smoke that we must all be working up.

 

[Robert Price]

All I have to say is WOW! Well thats not really all I have to say.

I have been photographing for near 22 years now. I have used alot of cameras and currently have 36 cameras in my stable. All of then are shooters and range from old kodaks to a new Canon XTI. I have found each to have their use at one time or another. SLR, rangefinder, Digital, what have you. I also would like to think that I am quite proficient with them all. I have used 110mm, 35mm, 6x6 (9) poloroid, you name it. To even state that you think digital is far better than film is just absurd, it may be better for you, but that does not meen that it is better.

I use digital due to the convienence, But for really enjoying the "Art" or photography. I will shot film. I enjoy all aspects of photography, and use the right "tool" for the right "job".

You view on the ease of use of digital is a correct, but your statements are one sided to be sure. If I was you instead of buying an old rangefinder I would have bought a newer RF instead. You might have found it to be a little easier to use. Old RF's take a little "getting to know" time. That is why alot of people who use them like them. It's an intimate relationship of sorts.

 

[POSTI-Tuomo]

I think his opinion is as warranted as anyone's, and he did a good job explaining the points behind his logic. No qualms with that... The closing statement was a bit on the defensive side (as if expecting to be grilled), but surely he doesn't deserve being barbecued here. 🙂 Wouldn't you agree?

 

[dcsang]

BLASPHEMER !!!!!

Quick, let's get a posse together and drive him out of town.. or burn him at the stake even !! 😀

Seriously though, Bill, good on you for enjoying your DSLR. Many of us here shoot with both.. just because we're here at RFF doesn't mean we ONLY use Rangefinders.. different tools for different jobs..

Many times when I carried my DSLR (Canon 5D or my 20D) with the 70-200 IS lens I would get asked if I was a professional photographer. I would also get asked "What are you taking pictures of" if I was out in the street and I would also get people moving out of the frame (even if I wanted them IN the frame) because the camera and lens combination is pretty big.

Other times, when I carried my Leica M's people would look at me in the "guy must be a tourist" sort of way or just keep doing their thing. I've never had anyone ask me if I was a "pro" when I had my Leicas or "what are you taking pictures of" and most people just keep walking along doing their own thing.

So.. for certain jobs.. I love and adore the DSLRs that I own.. but for shooting in the street.. or a quiet church.. or such.. I love to carry my Leicas.

Today a lot of folks shoot with digital cameras of all sorts. Cell phones, point and shoots, DSLRs, "prosumer" cameras etc. They're ubiquitous and that's fine. Just don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that a DSLR or digital camera is superior to a Rangefinder in some ways. 🙂

Ya see.. everyone is entitled to their own point of view.. even if that view is skewed by tunnel vision 😀

Cheers
Dave

 

[georgefspencer]

To each his own.

My first camera was a Konica back in the 60’s. In the 80’s I started using Nikon SLR’s. In 1999 I bought a Leica M6ttl. I used it for several years and had fun with it . . . bought several lenses. But then I heard the siren song of digital. I bought a Canon 10D. My Leica sat unused. And just recently I bought a 30D . . . . with several “L” lenses.

Then one day I decided to pull out the Leica and check to see if the old batteries had leaked. (I know. I should have removed them.) They had not leaked and the camera still worked fine! After a few shots I was hooked again!!

Digital SLR cameras are great! I love the fact that I can see what I get immediately. I love the fact that I don’t have to carry rolls of film when I travel. (I shot 600 pictures on my last trip to Germany.) But there is just something about my rangefinder. I’m actually learning photography again. I’m learning to focus, to choose f-stops and to select my shutter speed. Sure it takes more time. I’m not banging off photos . . . and I actually have to wait to see what my picture looks like. I don’t care. I love it.

I’m not going to get rid of my digital SLR’s. I will still use them. But I sure am having fun with my “new” Leica.

 

[Jonnyfez]

Two points: If your rangefinder experience is limited to the use of Zorkis, Argus's (Argi?) and a Canonet, then perhaps you should borrow a Leica before writing off rangefinders entirely. Nothing wrong with any of these cameras but expecting them to perform like a M6 or a DSLR like a D200 is asking a lot.

Secondly, you don't HAVE to go digital with 35mm film. I believe photography had existed for 150 years before the advent of pixels. It's convenient, but not necessary.

Personally, I don't believe in the superiority of one medium over the other, but it sounds like you found what works for you so I say run with it.

Enjoy!

 

[POSTI-Tuomo]

I enjoy using both digital and film cameras. Digital for the instant results, like documenting stages of camera disassembly or some other urgent matter that needs to get quickly out of the camera... Film for the process of the whole deal: loading, shooting, developing, printing etc. And photographing with film is less forgiving; you get better at guessing correct exposure and thus get less dependant on light meters and such... It is really good exercise for us less experienced individuals. 😀

But yeah, film or digi, anything goes.

 

[jaapv]

The advent of RD1 and M8 seems to have passed unnoticed🙄
And- I still have Kodachrome in my fridge - contrary to my public image here 😛
And I will take a 1957 Ferrari over any Chevvy in the showroom now......

 

[back alley]

Let me give some brief background. I began shooting in the late 1950s while I was in grade school. My first camera was an Argus C3. Along the way, I owned many film cameras, including a Canon AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder.

I was always disappointed with the results I got from film, however, and gradually my photography tapered off.

Then came digital photography, and I fell in love all over again. Finally I was able to achieve the results I knew were possible. At present, I have a Nikon D200 and a Nikon D70, and various Nikkor lenses.

But, several months ago, I gave in to my nostalgic urges, and purchased three 35mm RF cameras on eBay - a Zorki C, a Zorki 4K, and an Argus C3. I had hoped that the Zorki 4K would be a usable camera, but I had conveniently forgotten all the hassles associated with film photography.

My 35mm rangefinder misadventure has confirmed my earlier opinion. First of all, any SLR, film or digital, is inherently superior to a rangefinder camera. The ability to look through the lens is a huge advantage. Also, the rangefinder focusing mechanism is a Rube Goldberg setup that depends on precision machining to work properly. Let's face it; back when ordinary people could not afford a SLR, the rangefinder camera was king. But that was fifty years ago.

Second, digital is superior to film. I had forgotten all the hassles associated with film; the cost, the inconvenience, and the delay. Today, everything converts to digital sooner or later, so add the hassle and expense of scanning.

From an engineering standpoint, a digital SLR is a more elegant image capturing machine than a film rangefinder camera. Anytime a process involves conversion, degredation takes place. A RF camera converts the fore-and-aft position of the lens to a split-image mechanism, and a 35mm camera requires that the image on the negative must be converted to digital. A digital SLR removes these intermediate steps, bringing the photographer closer to the subject, and eliminating two sources of degradation.

My three 35mm rangefinder cameras are in display cases in my office. They are beautiful antiques, reminders of a bygone age of photography.

Today, most of the people on RFF prefer shooting with 35mm RF cameras. That's fine; some people enjoy driving old cars. Just don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that a 35mm rangefinder camera is superior to a DLSR in some ways. It isn't, just like a 1957 Chevy is inferior to a 2007 Chevy in every way.

so what is it that you enjoy about our little forum bill?

joe

 

[Solinar]

Bill, if you are happy as a clam at high tide with digital capture only, then we all wish you well. Good luck to you.

 

[robin a]

To each,his own........Robin

 

[woodphoto]

First, digital is now on the level with 35mm film. Digital is slightly easier in post, but it shoots like slide film and has very little latitude .
Second, If its superior quality and sharpness you want why even bother with 35mm, why not get a Medium format digital (hassy @ $13-30,000) or a film Medium. They both blow 35 and 35dslrs away. Hell, get a larg format, nothing can top that quality. Nothing beats a 8x10 contact-print on fiber.

And third, no-smoking here, enjoy your forums at photo.net

 

[ferider]

Hi Bill,

I just had a look at your web-site. I liked some photos, "Johnstown Planing Mill" caught my eye immediately.

Enjoy your Nikon gear. No reason to change a winning team ... If you get a chance in the future, I recommend
trying a more modern RF (compared to Canonet, Argus, and Zorki) with a lens that is hard to mirror on
the Nikkor DSLR side (at least size wise, like a 35 Summilux, 40/1.4 Nokton, 28/3.5 Color Skopar etc).
You truly are comparing a 1957 Chevy to a 2007 Chevy in your post ... It might be different
if you would compare a Goldwing or Shelby Cobra from the 60s to your 2007 Chevy Mini-van, though 🙂

Roland.

 

[dee]

i actually have a Citroen 2cv ... my Zorkis love it !
It's wierd , if I wanted to extol the virtues of my Minoltas or my Canon G2 - i would do so in the appropriate place .
No doubt that Bill Rogers is perfectly reasonable in his preference , but the reason that I am safe in this forum is that ''reason '' is NOT a qualification for enjoying a sqinty , awkward . diminutive , exasperating , delectable little delight !
dee